the 2nd Amendment is totally out of date. It can and should be repealed. Don't act like it cannot be repealed.

OK. Go ahead. Get it repealed. I'll wait.

Until such time as you can manage that, though, it's still US law, and it must be obeyed.

Obey the constitution? Wut? The Southern Dandy: I'm under the impression knowledge that it takes 2/3 of the congress and two thirds of the states to repeal an amendment, and if you think that you could get anything over 1/5 of the congress, or 1/10 of the states to vote to repeal ANY amendment in the Bill of Rights, you're living in a fantasy world.

Start with:Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.

1) It's not clear if the Newtown Shooter actually used the Bushmaster in the killings. He also had 2 side arms with him. The side arms are just as deadly as the rifle. Funny, a few years ago the anit gun crowd was screaming about hand guns, and were all for long rifles.

2) Magazine capacity is negliable. It litiarly takes 3 seconds to change an empty magazine. I don't care for large capacity mags either, but I realize they are not the problem.

As far as licensing and 2 references: CT already has that requirement. So much for that. eh?

The side arms are not really just as deadly, since they force you to pause to reload. Time is of the essence in a spree shooting. That reloading pause is where these shooters have been interrupted in the past. They are also not as accurate against a fleeing target.

And two, What is CT in your vernacular? Have any of these spree killers have one?

CT stands for Conneticut. CT has tough gun laws. The laws being proposed (reference checks, licensing, trigger locks, background checks,ban on gun shows. etc) were all in effect in CT.

I disagree with you on the reloading (unless it's Barney Fife trying to put bullets into a revolver) Snapping in a new clip and drawing the bolt is not a significant factor. Where do you ...

the last gun control legislation would have made her guns legal. The proposed legislation would make her guns legal. Connecticut law made her guns legal.

chuckufarlie:Outlander Engine: chuckufarlie: I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.

Why are you not worried about this fellow. That is the perfect description of the mother of the kid who shot up the school last week.

Because for one, with a law like that in effect his mother wouldn't have bought that rifle because it wouldn't have been readily available.

And two, because statistically he's an outlier. The perfect storm of a trained, crazy person, whose mother provided him with arms and ammunition.

His mother already owned the gun and you are against confiscation. Your law would not take guns out of the hands of people like her with children like hers.

You gun nutz are great at applying labels. You call him an outlier and that allows you to dismiss him, The simple fact is that you said that you are not concerned about the very type of person who killed all of those people. Do you not see that allowing people to keep these guns really does not change the threat? There are already lots and lots of crazy people who own weapons that kill lots of people in a hurry. Banning the manufacture of new guns does nothing to lessen that.

Calm down son. You're frothing.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.

But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition.

chuckufarlie:You make some pretty stupid assumptions, scooter.Let me make the question clearly because obviously you missed it. I did not ask you what you would do or want to do to the person with the gun. What I want to know is this - if your children were the victims of a shooting like the one last week, would you maintain your feelings about gun control?

Well of course I would - but that would be because of an *emotional* response. I'm not against alcohol either, but if someone in my family was killed by a drunk driver I'd probably want to string all drunk drivers up by their thumbs and demand anyone convicted of driving under the influence spend 10 years in jail.

But just because that would be the *emotional* response (and rightfully so, IMO) doesn't make it the *correct* response.

Molavian:chuckufarlie: You are way too stupid to understand the point so you just make asinine statements that prove how stupid you are.

Huh? What did I say that was stupid?

He's a troll. Just stop responding and see how shrill he gets in his cries for attention. Notice how he started - with MADD-like emotional appeal and then continued with it until he started getting responses.

Artisan Sandwich:You are the reason that people think of gun owners as nutty. Your masturbation fantasy is pretty specific. What color socks is the bad guy wearing? What does he look like when you shoot him? Please tell.

The homicidal ideation and hero fantasy just drips from almost every post these guys make. It's like looking into the mind of an insecure child.

FightDirector:They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

You're entirely correct, of course. But, you should be careful, because while the pro-gun side is likely to (and already has) shout this argument to the rafters, the anti-gun side is likely to say "Oh, they're both the same? Well then, I guess they both need to be banned, don't they?"

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

That's simply not true. "Any firearm with a barrel longer than 6 inches and which can contain more than 2 rounds of ammunition in an automatically-feeding mechanism (commonly referred to but not limited in definition to "a clip") shall be unlawful to possess, carry, transport, shoot, fire, lotsa legal synonyms in case someone comes up with a word you didn't think of and skirts the law."

So now you've banned "assault rifles" and their non-cosmetically enhanced variants such as your above example, but you haven't banned deer rifles or shotguns, or handguns (with the exception of ridiculous hand cannons like the Desert Eagle with the 10" barrel, which you practically have to be He-Man to use effectively anyway).

Not saying this is necessarily the direction we should go, but it would be a direction to go which takes care of (in law, anyway) cosmetic differences while not banning all guns.

Outlander Engine:chuckufarlie: Outlander Engine: chuckufarlie: I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Calm down son. You're frothing.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.

But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition...

Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, People who live in constant fear that somebody is going to try to kill them are paranoid. That would make lots of gun owners crazy.

Banning weapons without confiscating them does not take them out of the hands of crazy people, as last week demonstrates.

There was nothing in your proposed law that would have taken the gun away from him. Maybe you should go find out the details of his case and then get back to us.

Dedicate people with money? Do you mean like his mother? She had lots of money. She had the money and the dedication to get that rifle.

You want to regulate "ready access". How do you do that? Are you going to go into people's homes to insure that they are following the law? Any law that attempts to regulate "ready access" is really worthless. You are just hoping that people will follow the law with no way to know if they are and no way to punish them.

And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

Insatiable Jesus:Southern100: chuckufarlie: What happened that turned you into a whimpering coward? Why do you live in constant fear for your life while at the same time, you do not give a rat's ass about the lives of school children? It takes a real man to hide behind a bunch of children because you think somebody is out to kill you.

As I said earlier in this thread, hundreds of school children are killed every year by drunk drivers. Are you going equally fight for a nationwide ban on all alcohol products?

If not, why not? IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!

AlcoholFirearms are enjoyed by millions and has uses other than killing somebody in a DUI crashMass Shooting.

These assault riflesAlcoholic beverages are built for one reason: to extract money from the insecure, the very segment of the population who doesn't need them. As evidenced every month in the news.

dittybopper:Molavian: chuckufarlie: You are way too stupid to understand the point so you just make asinine statements that prove how stupid you are.

Huh? What did I say that was stupid?

He's losing, so he has to resort to name-calling.

Basically, his arguments are nothing more than remove all firearms, regardless of the Consitution (in order to enforce his solution one would need to violate more than one amendment in the Bill of Rights) and regardless of whether or not that would work. His statements are either things he's completely failed to think through or he's actually a totalitarian in disguise.

At this point, I think goal should be to see how shrill we can get his protests and cries for attention.

2 grams:1) It's not clear if the Newtown Shooter actually used the Bushmaster in the killings. He also had 2 side arms with him. The side arms are just as deadly as the rifle. Funny, a few years ago the anit gun crowd was screaming about hand guns, and were all for long rifles.

2) Magazine capacity is negliable. It litiarly takes 3 seconds to change an empty magazine. I don't care for large capacity mags either, but I realize they are not the problem.

As far as licensing and 2 references: CT already has that requirement. So much for that. eh?

The side arms are not really just as deadly, since they force you to pause to reload. Time is of the essence in a spree shooting. That reloading pause is where these shooters have been interrupted in the past. They are also not as accurate against a fleeing target.

And two, What is CT in your vernacular? Have any of these spree killers have one?

CT stands for Conneticut. CT has tough gun laws. The laws being proposed (reference checks, licensing, trigger locks, background checks,ban on gun shows. etc) were all in effect in CT.

I disagree with you on the reloading (unless it's Barney Fife trying to put bullets into a revolver) Snapping in a new clip and drawing the bolt is not a significant factor. Where do you come up with the statement that during reloading is when many of these shooters are shot?

I agree that a long rifle is generally more accurate than a hand gun, but a spree killer isn't really taking the time to aim down the sites, is he? Someone shooting widly can do just as much damage with a hand gun than with a rifle. And in close quarters, the hand gun would nave an advantage.

It looks like you are quoting CT state law for concealed carry. Although I can't find anything about references there either. Anyway, This would be an intermediate license similar to ones issued under the NFA. It would be for owning semi-auto long arms with large capacity clips. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Also, I didn't say "many". I said it had happened. And it's why these spree killers go looking for large capacity magazines.

And finally, yeah, I think these they take the time to aim. Would you like to debate the old adage of bringing a pistol to a rifle gunfight? That sounds entertaining, but I'm not sure I have the time...

chuckufarlie:And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

It's not a paranoid vision, its a hypothetical situation. I have no idea what types of attacks I might face, and I surly can't imagine every scenario others may face in their own homes or places of business and neither can you. I didn't say I needed a 30rd clip for that, but don't think a bolt action rifle would be very versatile in any situation other than a single shot.

I appreciate you answering the initial question. I wonder if these guys have a fire contingency plan? I do. Home invasions are common enough that one should at least have thought about their options, whether or not they own firearms.

Gosling:Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

And what will you do about those who own more than 5 firearms? How will you know if anyone owns more than five? More importantly, what makes your opinion on how many firearms are "reasonable" any more valuable than the opinion of those who disagree?

Gosling:But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

You seem to be ignoring the fact (repeated several times by other posters) that there are thousands of firearms which are functionally identical to the AR-15, without using the AR-15 platform. You are also ignoring the fact that the AR-15 platform is available in a wide variety of calibers- all the way up to .50 Beowulf. This is one of the reasons the AR-15 is so popular- it's easily customizable for different uses. Lastly, why do people proposing gun bans of various sorts invariably resort to referring to the genitalia of their political rivals?

I don't agree with your stated opinions on the subject of gun control, but I've been willing to listen to your arguments with an open mind. Your descent into name-calling is profoundly unhelpful in the cause of convincing others to come over to your opinion.

Gosling:And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

How will this reduce the total number of firearms? How will your proposed legislation prevent another massacre- or even make one less likely?

Gosling:And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.

How will you know when you have reduced everyone in the country to five firearms or less? What will you do if your proposed buy-back program does not remove "enough" firearms from circulation?

I have no objection to reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership, and I'm willing to debate the subject in good faith. The fact remains that SCOTUS has ruled that owning and carrying firearms- specifically including semi-auto pistols- is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right for individual citizens. Please try to tailor your proposals to legislation which will pass Constitutional scrutiny. Knee-jerk reactions which give the appearance of action without making any functional difference are a waste of time and effort for everyone involved. Legislation which is unconstitutional on its face is exactly that sort of wasted effort.

Since citizens who have concealed-weapons permits are dramatically less likely to be involved in crimes than the rest of the population, perhaps we should focus on the trigger end of the firearm rather than the firearm itself. Thus far, our only semi-effective tool for identifying those with dangerously poor impulse control is a criminal background check. Psychology is still far too subjective to be a useful tool for identifying those who are a danger to themselves or others.If we are going to deny some citizens a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, we have to have objective evidence that such denial of rights meets a societal need. The opinion of any given psychologist may be disagreed with by a host of other psychologists, rendering that opinion less than objective evidence. We also need to avoid the possibility that someone philosophically opposed to civilian firearms ownership identifying anyone who wants a firearm as psychologically unfit.

If we (as a society) could develop some objective psychological measure which can withstand court scrutiny, such a measure could be adopted as part of the firearms purchase process- just as criminal background checks are used now. I doubt most gun owners would object- provided such decisions could be appealed through the courts.

900RR:Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.

As a "fan of guns", shut the hell up; you aren't helping. You are just another twit that doesn't understand why we even have the 2nd amendment, so zip it, ok?

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).

No, you shut the fark up. It's a free goddamn country, an I'm entitled to my opinion the same as you are. My opinion just doesn't involve being complicit with morons who will mow down first graders like grass.

mizchief:chuckufarlie: mizchief: Artisan Sandwich: mizchief: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.

/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

Would depend on your house. My parents have a really long hall way (about 20 yards) the leads from the front and back doors to where the bed rooms are. Best way to defend against an intruder would be to post up behind a door frame where you have a stack of 2'x4's that could help stop bullets the intruder fires back, and then take him out at range, vs. getting up close and personal where the bad guy is most likely carrying a pistol and has a better chance of hitting you.

You are the reason that people think of gun owners as nutty. Your masturbation fantasy is pretty specific. What color socks is the bad guy wearing? What does he look like when you shoot him? Please tell.

Someone asked for an example of how an AR-15 would be good for home defense so I gave one. Simple as that. It's not my fault if it gave you a chubby.

You could stop that paranoid vision of yours with a bolt action single shot rifle. You do not need to have thirty rounds screaming down the hall all at once.

It's not a paranoid vision, its a hypothetical situation. I have no idea what types of attacks I might face, and I surly can't imagine every scenario others may face in their own homes or places of business and neither can you. I didn't say I needed a 30rd clip for that, but don't think a bolt action rifle would be very versatile in any situation other than a single shot.

It is paranoia. You have an unreasonable fear that somebody is going to try to kill you. That is the very definition of paranoia. You can try to call it a hypothetical situation, but that is not even close to being accurate. It is paranoia, plain and simple. You live in constant fear for your live. You tell us not to worry about school children getting killed but you are worried about being killed yourself. That is cowardly.

I have lived in a city that is considered very dangerous, and it is. I lived in Detroit. I never carried a gun. I was never afraid. I was cautious but I was not a coward like you are. I went where I wanted to go, when I wanted to go there. I was not afraid.

And yet, I survived without a scratch. I did not live in fear.

I feel sorry for you. A little bit of you dies every day. Do you know who Hemingway was? Among other things, he said" "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one". I am not brave but you are certainly dying a thousand deaths.

dittybopper:chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.

It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

chuckufarlie:Outlander Engine: chuckufarlie: Outlander Engine: chuckufarlie: I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Calm down son. You're frothing.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.

But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition...

Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, People who live in constant fear that somebody is going to try to kill them are paranoid. That would make lots of gun owners crazy.

Banning weapons without confiscating them does not take them out of the hands of crazy people, as last week demonstrates.

There was nothing in your proposed law that would have taken the gun away from him. Maybe you should go find out the details of his case and then get back to us.

Dedicate people with money? Do you mean like his mother? She had lots of money. She had the money and the dedication to get that rifle.

You want to regulate "ready access". How do you do that? Are you going to go into people's homes to insure that they are following the law? Any law that attempts to regulate "ready access" is really worthless. You are just hoping that people will follow the law with no way to know if they are and no way to punish them.

And if you tell me would be able to p ...

Ahh ... no.Never argue with a fool. Folks can't tell the difference.

Good luck with that sparky. I'd work on your reading comprehension if I were you.

chuckufarlie:dittybopper: chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.

It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

Yes it is - that's the decision that Heller gave us. Do you even understand the words that you're using?

Outlander Engine:2 grams: 1) It's not clear if the Newtown Shooter actually used the Bushmaster in the killings. He also had 2 side arms with him. The side arms are just as deadly as the rifle. Funny, a few years ago the anit gun crowd was screaming about hand guns, and were all for long rifles.

2) Magazine capacity is negliable. It litiarly takes 3 seconds to change an empty magazine. I don't care for large capacity mags either, but I realize they are not the problem.

As far as licensing and 2 references: CT already has that requirement. So much for that. eh?

The side arms are not really just as deadly, since they force you to pause to reload. Time is of the essence in a spree shooting. That reloading pause is where these shooters have been interrupted in the past. They are also not as accurate against a fleeing target.

And two, What is CT in your vernacular? Have any of these spree killers have one?

CT stands for Conneticut. CT has tough gun laws. The laws being proposed (reference checks, licensing, trigger locks, background checks,ban on gun shows. etc) were all in effect in CT.

I disagree with you on the reloading (unless it's Barney Fife trying to put bullets into a revolver) Snapping in a new clip and drawing the bolt is not a significant factor. Where do you come up with the statement that during reloading is when many of these shooters are shot?

I agree that a long rifle is generally more accurate than a hand gun, but a spree killer isn't really taking the time to aim down the sites, is he? Someone shooting widly can do just as much damage with a hand gun than with a rifle. And in close quarters, the hand gun would nave an advantage.

It looks like you are quoting CT state law for concealed carry. Although I can't find anything about references there either. Anyway, This would be an intermediate license similar to ones issued under the NFA. It would be for owning semi-auto long arms with large capacity clips. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Also, I didn't say "many". ...

These people are NOT bringing pistols to a rifle fight. What they are doing is bringing rifles to SCHOOLS.

ronaprhys:chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.

It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

Yes it is - that's the decision that Heller gave us. Do you even understand the words that you're using?

How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.

FightDirector:thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.

The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

There are functional differences in the 'cosmetic package'. Lighter and shorter make the 'bad gun' easier to conceal and use in close quarters. So, no those are not just 'cosmetic changes'. Yes, you can make a 'good gun' into a 'bad gun', but there is no need to sell 'bad guns' ready to use for combat situations. You can buy gasoline, but you can't buy premade gasoline bombs designed to blow shiat up.

chuckufarlie:It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

Actually, yes it would be, because that would ban *ALL* rifles except single shot ones. I think you meant to say "all rifles that use removable magazines", but even that would fail:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster.

Replace "handgun" with "rifle with removable magazine" and you see it would fail, as they are immensely popular.And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

We'll just make more: Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of their history have been made with tools and materials inferior to what you can find at your local Lowes or Home Depot.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.

But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition...

Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, People who live in constant fear that somebody is going to try to kill them are paranoid. That would make lots of gun owners crazy.

Banning weapons without confiscating them does not take them out of the hands of crazy people, as last week demonstrates.

There was nothing in your proposed law that would have taken the gun away from him. Maybe you should go find out the details of his case and then get back to us.

Dedicate people with money? Do you mean like his mother? She had lots of money. She had the money and the dedication to get that rifle.

You want to regulate "ready access". How do you do that? Are you going to go into people's homes to insure that they are following the law? Any law that attempts to regulate "ready access" is really worthless. You are just hoping that people will follow the law with no way to know if they are and no way to punish them.

And if you tell me woul ...

You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.

chuckufarlie:How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.

Well, maybe you just don't understand the law and how it works. I think it's because you're too busy yelling and frothing at the mouth. Seriously - have you taken your meds lately? Honestly, you fail at understanding our legal system, anything that approaches science or statistics, and basically you've brought nothing to the debate.

Hint: Heller reversed the exact sort of laws you're calling for. That means it's been clearly determined that they're unconstitutional. Now, in order get around that you're going to have to actual work to prove your case.

Which you are singularly incapable of doing. Because you are a failure.

dittybopper:chuckufarlie: It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

Actually, yes it would be, because that would ban *ALL* rifles except single shot ones. I think you meant to say "all rifles that use removable magazines", but even that would fail:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster.

Replace "handgun" with "rifle with removable magazine" and you see it would fail, as they are immensely popular.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

We'll just make more: Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of their history have been made with tools and materials inferior to what you can find at your local Lowes or Home Depot.

That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

Add masturbation to that long list of things that you do not understand. And I never said that it would mean that you are impotent. Maybe you should just add anything to do with sex to that list of things that you do not understand.

chuckufarlie:That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

chuckufarlie:ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.

Add masturbation to that long list of things that you do not understand. And I never said that it would mean that you are impotent. Maybe you should just add anything to do with sex to that list of things that you do not understand.

You are just so cute when you try to argue. Have you ever actually lost an argument with an eggplant? The lack of basic understanding that you display for, well, anything is amazing. Machining is easy.

ronaprhys:chuckufarlie: How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.

Well, maybe you just don't understand the law and how it works. I think it's because you're too busy yelling and frothing at the mouth. Seriously - have you taken your meds lately? Honestly, you fail at understanding our legal system, anything that approaches science or statistics, and basically you've brought nothing to the debate.

Hint: Heller reversed the exact sort of laws you're calling for. That means it's been clearly determined that they're unconstitutional. Now, in order get around that you're going to have to actual work to prove your case.

Which you are singularly incapable of doing. Because you are a failure.

Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.